Testimony is a major source of knowledge—we know most things through what others tell us, not through direct experience. But how does testimony transmit knowledge? Reductionists argue testimonial knowledge requires being reducible to individual evidence (the speaker's track record, plausibility of claims). Anti-reductionists argue testimony is a basic source of knowledge, like perception; we're entitled to believe testimony absent specific defeaters. Neither view is without problems.
Based on the passage, it can be inferred that
all our knowledge comes from direct personal experience
explaining how we acquire knowledge through others raises distinctive epistemological questions
reductionists and anti-reductionists completely agree about testimony
testimony as a knowledge source has only one philosophical analysis
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. Testimony's role in knowledge creates distinctive debates.
- Context clues: How testimony transmits knowledge is disputed; positions differ on whether it reduces to other sources.
- Meaning: Social knowledge-transmission raises its own questions.
- Verify: The reductionist/anti-reductionist debate is specifically about testimonial knowledge.
💡 Strategy: When a knowledge source generates its own theoretical debates, infer distinctive epistemological issues.
Choice A is incorrect because "we know most things through what others tell us." Choice C is incorrect because they have different views (reduce vs. basic source). Choice D is incorrect because two views are presented, and "neither is without problems."